Rare Unanimous Senate Vote Sends Shockwaves Through DC, Pressure On Speaker Johnson After Prediction Market Ban
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Senate has approved a bipartisan measure banning members and their staff from using insider information to profit on prediction market platforms, marking a rare unanimous action that took effect immediately. The rule change was adopted before lawmakers left Washington for a weeklong recess. The measure, pushed by Sen. Bernie Moreno, prevents senators and their aides from placing bets on platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. These platforms allow users to wager on real-world events, including elections, geopolitical developments, and other high-impact outcomes.
Moreno said the effort aims to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and restore public trust in Congress. “I don’t believe we should trade stocks at all. It’s completely insane,” Moreno said. “I think we should focus on our jobs and have our voters go, ‘Hey, this guy’s voting this way, because this is the right thing for the state.’”
The rule change passed unanimously and immediately amended Senate ethics rules, requiring no action from the House or the president. It applies specifically to senators and Senate staff. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised the move on the Senate floor and urged the House to adopt a similar standard. “Speaker Johnson should immediately do the same thing in the House,” Schumer said.
There is already an effort underway in the House to mirror the Senate’s action. Rep. Ashley Hinson is leading a push for comparable legislation, as part of a broader conversation about ethics and financial activity by lawmakers. The move comes as Congress has struggled to reach consensus on other reforms, including proposals to ban stock trading by members while in office. Advocates of the new rule argue that prediction markets present a similar risk, particularly for officials with access to sensitive or nonpublic information.
Industry leaders have also expressed support for the change. Polymarket said it backs efforts to codify restrictions into law, noting that its own policies already prohibit insider trading. “Happy to help move this forward however we can,” the company said in a statement. Tarek Mansour, co-founder of Kalshi, also called for broader adoption of the rule. He said the company already blocks members of Congress from participating and enforces policies against insider trading. “This is a great step to increase trust in our markets by making it an industry standard,” Mansour said.
Despite bipartisan support in the Senate, the rule applies only within that chamber, leaving House members and other government officials outside its scope for now. Lawmakers pushing for expanded measures say further action will be needed to address those gaps. Sens. Todd Young and Elissa Slotkin have introduced separate legislation that would extend restrictions across the federal government. Their proposal would prohibit officials from using insider information to place prediction market bets.
The Senate’s decision represents a rare moment of agreement on ethics reform, but its broader impact will depend on whether similar restrictions are adopted across the federal government. The development highlights ongoing discussions about congressional ethics, financial transparency, and the potential for conflicts of interest in an era of rapidly evolving financial technologies. Prediction markets have grown in popularity and influence, raising questions about how lawmakers and staff interact with them given their access to nonpublic information.
The rule change is expected to serve as a model for potential House action and broader federal reforms. Public trust in Congress has been a persistent concern, with polls consistently showing low approval ratings for the institution. Advocates argue that measures like this one can help rebuild confidence by demonstrating a commitment to ethical standards. Critics of congressional stock trading and related activities have long called for stricter rules, and the prediction market ban aligns with those efforts.
As the measure takes effect, attention turns to the House, where similar proposals are under consideration. The bipartisan nature of the Senate vote may encourage House Republicans and Democrats to pursue comparable reforms. The broader legislative landscape includes ongoing debates over stock trading bans and other ethics measures, with varying levels of support across party lines. The unanimous Senate action provides momentum for those discussions, though differences in chamber rules and political priorities could affect the outcome in the House.
The developments occur amid heightened scrutiny of congressional conduct and the influence of money in politics. Legal and policy experts note that while the Senate rule is a significant step, its limited scope means additional action will be needed to address potential conflicts across the federal government. The proposal from Sens. Young and Slotkin represents one avenue for expanding the restrictions, with potential implications for executive branch officials and other federal employees.
Further updates are expected as the House considers parallel legislation and as lawmakers return from recess. The Senate’s unanimous vote marks a notable instance of bipartisanship on ethics reform, providing a foundation for continued discussions on transparency and accountability in Congress.
SCOTUS SMACKDOWN — Justice Alito Unloads on KBJ After Explosive Ruling
WASHINGTON, D.C. — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries grew visibly upset during an interview on CNBC this week as host Becky Quick pressed him on the issue of extending taxpayer-provided subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare.” The program was enacted without Republican support during then-President Barack Obama’s first term.
The exchange occurred as the two discussed the current status of the subsidies, which House Speaker Mike Johnson has said the Republican majority would begin addressing after the recent government shutdown ended. Quick suggested that achieving a resolution would require bipartisan cooperation. “Let’s not go back to what’s done in the past, and what’s not been extended. If you want something to get done, you NEED to do something bipartisan,” she said to Jeffries, who responded by blaming Republicans. Democrats, when they controlled Congress under then-President Joe Biden, had implemented the provision that led to the subsidies sunsetting on December 1.
Jeffries appeared frustrated as the discussion continued. Quick eventually stated, “I don’t think you want to get a deal done. I think this is something where you’d like to see the rates go higher and allow Republicans to hang themselves with it.” Jeffries replied, “That is a ridiculous assertion! Shame on you!”
The interview highlighted ongoing partisan divisions over the future of the Affordable Care Act and its subsidies. Speaker Johnson has criticized Democrats for creating what he described as a healthcare crisis that they later used to demand additional spending. In a press conference, Johnson addressed the subsidies and placed responsibility on Democrats. “It is the Democrats who created Obamacare. It is the Democrats who did that without any Republican votes” during Obama’s first term, he said. Johnson added that Democratic policies had driven up costs for taxpayers and those with health insurance. “It is their policies that made that happen. And instead of reforming it, the Democrats don’t reform Obamacare. They want to subsidize it. They want to spend more taxpayer dollars,” he continued.
Johnson noted that the subsidies largely benefit insurance companies, which in turn contributes to rising premiums. “When they passed Obamacare in 2010, they called it the ‘Affordable Care Act.’ We know the truth is exactly the opposite. By some estimates, premiums have risen 60 percent,” he said. He argued that Republicans are focused on practical solutions to reduce costs, increase access and quality, and eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. “We got millions of ineligible enrollees off the program and it preserved it. It strengthened Medicaid for the people who rely upon it, which is the elderly, disabled, and young pregnant women,” he added.
The government shutdown that ended recently was tied in part to disagreements over spending levels and policy riders, including those related to healthcare. Johnson has emphasized that Republicans are committed to fiscal responsibility while seeking to address what he views as flaws in the Affordable Care Act. Jeffries has argued that Republican proposals would harm coverage and increase costs for working families. The debate is expected to continue as Congress addresses funding deadlines and longer-term healthcare reforms.
Public opinion on the Affordable Care Act remains divided, with polls showing varying levels of support depending on the specific provisions and proposed changes. The subsidies have played a significant role in making coverage more affordable for many enrollees, but critics argue they represent an ongoing burden on taxpayers. As lawmakers return to Washington following the recess, healthcare policy is likely to remain a central issue in budget and appropriations discussions.
The broader context includes the expiration of enhanced subsidies under the American Rescue Plan, which Democrats had extended during their time in control of Congress. Republicans have argued that the temporary nature of those subsidies created an unsustainable situation, while Democrats have pushed for permanent extensions. The recent shutdown highlighted the difficulty of reaching agreement on these issues, with both sides accusing the other of prioritizing politics over practical solutions.
Legal and policy experts note that any long-term changes to the Affordable Care Act would require careful consideration of impacts on coverage, costs, and the federal budget. The current debate reflects longstanding ideological differences over the role of government in healthcare. As the midterm elections approach, these issues are expected to feature prominently in campaign messaging for both parties.
Rep. Ilhan Omar Under Fire Over "$90 MILLION" - Then Officials Reveal Where It Came From
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) reported a net worth of up to $30 million in her latest financial disclosure, marking a significant increase from previous filings. The May disclosure shows Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, experienced a roughly 3,500% jump in net worth in 2024 compared with the prior year. The gains were attributed to Mynett’s two businesses: a winery in Santa Rosa, California (eStCru LLC), and a venture capital firm in Washington, D.C. (Rose Lake Capital).
In the filing, Omar valued the winery at $1 million to $5 million, a sharp increase from the $15,000 to $50,000 range reported previously. Mynett’s stake in the two companies rose from no more than $51,000 at the end of 2023 to between $6 million and $30 million by the end of 2024. The couple settled investor lawsuits alleging multimillion-dollar fraud with cash payments. At the start of 2024, Rose Lake Capital was valued at no more than $1,000 to Mynett, with just $42.44 in its bank accounts. By year’s end, Mynett reported his stake had surged to as much as $25 million.
Omar had previously dismissed claims she was a millionaire as “ridiculous” and “categorically false.” In a February interview with Business Insider and in a post on X, she challenged critics to review her public financial statements, stating she had “barely thousands let alone millions.” Mynett’s business dealings have drawn scrutiny since the couple’s March 2020 marriage. Omar’s campaign paid Mynett’s consulting firm $2.9 million during the 2020 cycle. Mynett later left political consulting to partner in the winery and venture capital businesses.
Rose Lake Capital, formed in 2022, claims $60 billion in assets under management and touts expertise in structuring legislation. Its advisory board includes former Obama ambassadors Max Baucus and J. Adam Ereli, along with former Amalgamated Bank CEO Keith Mestrich. Shortly after Mynett launched the firm, Omar established the U.S.-Africa Policy Working Group, leading 20 members of Congress focused on strengthening partnerships with Africa.
Separately, Omar drew attention last week after being photographed smiling at the scene of the Minneapolis Catholic church shootings. As the U.S. House representative for the church’s district, she visited the site and described the “unspeakable horror” to reporters. “My heart breaks for the families and the victims of this tragic mourning year in Minneapolis,” she said, adding that authorities do not “know much” about the shooter apart from the individual being found dead at the scene. “We are going to learn more about motives and what more can be done to make sure we can avoid tragedies like this,” she added.
The financial disclosure and the church shooting incident have added to ongoing public and political scrutiny of Omar. The developments reflect broader national conversations about financial transparency for elected officials, potential conflicts of interest, and the tone of public commentary following tragedies. Omar has not issued a public response to questions about the wealth surge or the photograph as of this report.
The situation continues to develop as lawmakers and federal investigators review related matters, including the Feeding Our Future fraud scandal in Minnesota. Both parties have emphasized the importance of accountability in government spending and public service, though interpretations of the specific allegations vary along partisan lines. Legal experts note that financial disclosures are subject to review by the House Ethics Committee and other oversight bodies, with potential implications for public trust in elected officials.
Thune Pulls Ace From His Sleeve To Get Save America Act Passed - Says Republicans Can Do It...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated that Republicans are prepared to use budget reconciliation to advance the SAVE America Act if necessary to overcome Democratic opposition. Thune stated that reconciliation remains a viable option if it becomes necessary to ensure the bill reaches the finish line. “I think that budget reconciliation, as I’ve said before, you have to have a reason to do it. And if we have reasons to do it—and we may, very well may—I think there are a number of our colleagues in the Senate—we just came out of a luncheon where this was discussed—and I think there’s a lot of support for a budget reconciliation bill,” Thune said.
Thune noted that Republicans have multiple legislative pathways available to advance the measure. He said leadership is prepared to consider using those tools if it ensures the bill meets procedural requirements. “We have two legislative vehicles, as you know, available to us, so we could tee one of those up. And that’s an option. And we’ll see—if that’s what it takes to get some of these things across the finish line, and we can do it with simple majorities, we’ll take a hard look at it,” he said.
Under the reconciliation process, legislation can pass the Senate with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. That would allow Republicans to pass the measure with 50 votes, with Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote if needed. However, the process is limited by the Byrd Rule, which restricts reconciliation bills to provisions that directly affect federal spending or revenue. Items considered “extraneous” can be removed if they do not meet those criteria.
Sen. John Kennedy also voiced support for pursuing the reconciliation strategy to advance the legislation. He said Republicans should explore all available legal avenues to ensure the bill meets procedural requirements. “I think we are, Mr. President—I know you are—we need to try to pass this legislation through reconciliation,” Kennedy said. “Now, you know how reconciliation works, Mr. President. It means we can pass this bill with 50 Republican votes and the Vice President to break the tie,” he said.
Newly minted Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin indicated that discussions around this approach are already underway. He said Republican leadership, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, is actively working on a reconciliation framework. “Lindsey Graham, the chairman where the reconciliation will funnel through, is committed to making sure we get reconciliation through,” Mullin said. “If that is in some form with funding ICE, possibly backfilling from the One Big Beautiful Bill, but also, more importantly, the SAVE America Act—there’s a framework that we can use through reconciliation, paying for it and putting in some of the policies that cost money,” he said.
“Because there’s nothing more important than the SAVE America Act. I mean, that’s what the American people want. Eighty percent of the population says they want only Americans voting—citizens who are registered to vote, citizens who have done it the right way,” Mullin said. “And I believe that everybody wants election integrity. So fortunately, Lindsey Graham has said that, through reconciliation, he’s willing to put the framework out for that,” he said.
The SAVE America Act would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, strengthen voter identification rules, and expand federal involvement in maintaining voter rolls. Polling has consistently shown broad public support for such requirements across party lines. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for the elimination of the filibuster to allow the measure to pass with a simple majority. The current debate reflects ongoing partisan divisions over election procedures and the use of the reconciliation process. The Senate continues to navigate multiple high-stakes deadlines, with lawmakers weighing national security, fiscal priorities, and electoral integrity measures as the midterm cycle approaches.
Further attempts to advance voter ID provisions may occur in subsequent legislative vehicles. The outcome of recent votes has drawn attention to internal Republican dynamics and the challenges of achieving consensus on contentious policy riders. Both parties are expected to continue debating the balance between security, access, and administrative feasibility in federal elections. The developments also occur against the backdrop of broader national conversations about the filibuster’s role in the modern Senate. Proponents of change argue that the 60-vote threshold has become a tool for obstruction, while defenders say it protects minority rights and encourages bipartisanship. The current debate is likely to intensify as the 2026 midterms draw closer.
Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz STUNNED After Bombshell Discovery - He Belongs in Prison...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump has moved to recover millions of dollars in legal fees from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis following the collapse of her racketeering case against him. The development marks a significant turn in the long-running legal battle that began with Willis’s high-profile indictment of Trump and numerous associates under Georgia’s RICO statute.
The case, which centered on allegations of election interference related to the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, ultimately unraveled amid a series of procedural and ethical challenges. Court records and public statements indicate that key elements of the prosecution’s case were undermined by issues including witness credibility, prosecutorial conduct, and judicial rulings that limited the scope of admissible evidence. The proceedings drew intense national scrutiny due to their political implications and the high visibility of the parties involved.
Trump’s legal team has formally requested reimbursement for defense costs incurred during the case, arguing that the prosecution was politically motivated and lacked sufficient merit to justify the resources expended. Legal experts note that fee recovery in such high-stakes criminal matters is uncommon but possible when courts determine that a case was pursued without reasonable basis or in bad faith. The exact amount sought has not been finalized in public filings, but estimates circulating in legal circles place it in the millions, reflecting the extensive litigation, expert testimony, and appellate work involved.
The original indictment, filed under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleged a coordinated effort to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. Willis had positioned the case as a defense of electoral integrity, while Trump and his allies consistently described it as lawfare intended to hinder his political activities. The case’s dismissal or effective abandonment has been cited by Trump supporters as validation of their long-held claims of selective prosecution.
Fulton County officials have not issued a detailed public response to the fee demand as of this report. The district attorney’s office has maintained that its actions were based on evidence and carried out in accordance with legal standards. However, the collapse of the case has prompted renewed debate over the use of state resources in politically sensitive prosecutions and the standards for bringing RICO charges against public figures.
The developments occur against a backdrop of broader national conversations about the intersection of law enforcement and politics. Multiple high-profile cases involving former President Trump have concluded or been significantly altered in recent months, with outcomes often attributed to procedural rulings, witness issues, or shifting political contexts. Legal analysts have noted that the Georgia case’s resolution could influence future prosecutorial decisions in similar matters, particularly regarding the threshold for pursuing complex conspiracy charges.
Trump has publicly framed the fee recovery effort as a necessary step to deter what he describes as abusive legal tactics. In statements, he has emphasized the financial and reputational costs borne by defendants in politically charged cases. The request for millions in reimbursement aligns with a pattern of aggressive legal pushback by the Trump legal team in response to cases they view as meritless or vindictive.
The Fulton County case was one of several legal actions against Trump that drew widespread media attention and partisan debate. Its resolution has been interpreted by some observers as a setback for efforts to hold former officials accountable through state-level prosecutions, while others argue it underscores the importance of rigorous evidentiary standards in high-stakes cases. The fee demand adds a new financial dimension to the aftermath, potentially setting a precedent for cost recovery in dismissed political prosecutions.
As the legal proceedings wind down, attention has turned to the broader implications for public trust in the justice system. Polling data from multiple sources has shown divided public opinion on the merits of the Georgia case, with partisan lines largely determining responses. The fee recovery effort is expected to generate additional litigation and public commentary in the coming weeks.
May you like
Legal experts anticipate that any fee award would be subject to appeal and could take months or years to resolve fully. The case continues to serve as a flashpoint in discussions about prosecutorial discretion, campaign finance laws, and the role of state attorneys general in national political disputes. Both parties continue to monitor developments closely as the midterm election cycle approaches, with implications for campaign strategies and voter perceptions of judicial fairness.
